Docket: IMM-2753-16
Citation:
2016 FC 1018
[ENGLISH
TRANSLATION]
Ottawa, Ontario, September 8, 2016
PRESENT: The Honourable
Mr. Justice Shore
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
HAMIT TAHIR AHMAT
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
(Judgment delivered from the bench on July 7, 2016)
[1]
The applicant's removal to his country of
nationality is scheduled for July 9, 2016.
[2]
On June 26, 2016, the applicant submitted
an application for stay of removal, which was denied by a removal officer on
June 27, 2016.
[3]
This stay motion is related to his application
for leave to seek judicial review of the removal officer's decision.
[4]
The applicant is asking the Federal Court that
his removal be postponed until he can submit a pre-removal risk assessment
(PRRA) application, on December 22, 2016.
[5]
The case history shows that the applicant left
his country on October 13, 2014.
[6]
His application for refugee protection was
denied on April 15, 2015.
[7]
Subsequently, the RAD denied his application
against the RPD's decision, affirming the RPD's decision on December 24,
2015.
[8]
To satisfy the Federal Court, the applicant must
convince the Court by way of the three-pronged conjunctive test used in Toth
v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), (1988), 86 NR 302
(FCA), which is to say that the applicant must demonstrate that there is a
serious issue, that he could suffer irreparable harm in the event that the stay
is denied, and that there is a balance of inconvenience to him.
[9]
The applicant states that his credibility was
questioned and that both bodies of the Board refused to believe that he had
converted to Christianity.
[10]
In his application for administrative stay, the
applicant submitted a new allegation of threat to his person. It was not
mentioned at all to either body of the Board: he alleges that ties with his
family pose a threat of harm to his person given that his family has been
targeted by one of the main opponents of the current government.
[11]
The Court takes into consideration the fact that
the RPD denied his application in light of weaknesses in his testimony
regarding his new faith.
[12]
In addition, due to the applicant's lack of
credibility, the RAD found that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that
his family would persecute him, or even that his family would be intolerant of
his alleged recent conversion.
[13]
The RAD also noted in its decision, based on a
review of the documentation, that Chad has a population composed of 53% Muslims,
20% Catholics and 14% Protestants. Chad is established as a
secular country, wherein Muslim and Christian leaders share power within a
rotation system.
[14]
The Court notes that the Federal Court, through
Mr. Justice Martineau, denied the application for leave to seek
judicial review of this RAD decision on May 4, 2016.
[15]
Despite the fact that the applicant alleges he
shared his political views on his Facebook page, and that he asserts that his
two letters of support from members of his father's side of the family
demonstrate the threat of harm, this was not considered valid by the removal
officer. Rather, the removal officer noted that these allegations arose on the
eve of the removal to strengthen his case.
[16]
The Court notes that the applicant did not make
his new statements until June 13—just a few weeks before his removal
date—following the two negative Board decisions and the very recent Federal
Court judgment in May 2016, which did not favour the applicant.
[17]
For all of these reasons, the applicant has
failed to satisfy in any way the three conjunctive criteria in the Toth
test.
Email this Content